IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [payload] WGLC for VP8 Payload

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 03 January 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3493421F8CB4 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:26:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tpgt7FmOkwWb for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9B321F8CA0 for <payload@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1CD39E176 for <payload@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:26:40 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mb9LMGmFwbKd for <payload@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:26:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:29c0:ec01:f309:1358] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:29c0:ec01:f309:1358]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCAA039E0CE for <payload@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:26:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50E5A32C.6010205@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:26:36 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: payload@ietf.org
References: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940CDE15B3@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940CDE15B3@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060101010100020307090104"
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for VP8 Payload
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:26:44 -0000

On 12/29/2012 09:02 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> From: Patrik Westin <pwestin@webrtc.org <mailto:pwestin@webrtc.org>>
> Reply-To: "pwestin@webrtc.org <mailto:pwestin@webrtc.org>" 
> <pwestin@webrtc.org <mailto:pwestin@webrtc.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:06 PM
> To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com <mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com>>
> Cc: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org <mailto:stewe@stewe.org>>, "Ali C. 
> Begen" <abegen@cisco.com <mailto:abegen@cisco.com>>, Jonathan Lennox 
> <jonathan@vidyo.com <mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>>, "payload@ietf.org 
> <mailto:payload@ietf.org>" <payload@ietf.org 
> <mailto:payload@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-payload-vp8@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-payload-vp8@tools.ietf.org>" 
> <draft-ietf-payload-vp8@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-payload-vp8@tools.ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for VP8 Payload
>
>     Would you be happy with adding paragraph saying something like this?
>
>     "People doing splicing of VP8 streams will have to make sure the
>     rules for incrementing TL0PICIDX and KEYIDX are obeyed across the
>     splice. This may require rewriting values of TL0PICIDX and KEYIDX
>     after the splice."
>
>
> Slight rewording:
>
> Implementations doing splicing of VP8 streams will have to make sure 
> the rules for incrementing TL0PICIDX and KEYIDX are obeyed across the 
> splice. This will likely require rewriting values of TL0PICIDX and 
> KEYIDX after the splice.
Sounds fine to me.
>
> BTW, just out of curiosity, as vp9 is surfacing soon, is there any 
> implication on this draft?
>
>
No. The VP9 effort will eventually result in a stable codec, but it 
won't be VP8.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email